Personally, I don't buy this idea that Hillary is unelectable. Sure, she's polarising, but so was Bush. She's seen as a radical, but so was Bush. A lot of people will vote against her, as many others did with Bush. No, I think she's in with a shout.

Personally, I don't buy this idea that Hillary is unelectable. Sure, she's polarising, but so was Bush. She's seen as a radical, but so was Bush. A lot of people will vote against her, as many others did with Bush. No, I think she's in with a shout.

Bush is seen as a radical? Maybe now, but not in 2000. Nor was he that polarizing in 2000. (Or at least, no more polarizing than just about any other Republican would be.) Back in 2000, both Bush and Gore were seen as rather vanilla, uninspiring candidates, who didn't inspire a whole lot of passion either for or against them. And of course, the campaign rhetoric of both candidates was so poll-tested for swing voters, that it was easy to forget which one of them you were listening to. Hence the Onion article, "Bush or Gore: A New Era Dawns":

"Bush or Gore attributed his victory to his commitment to the issues that matter to ordinary, hardworking Americans. Throughout the campaign, the Republican or Democrat spoke out in favor of improving educational standards, protecting the environment, reducing crime, strengthening the military, cutting taxes, and reforming Social Security. He also took a strong pro-middle-class stand, praising America's working families as "the backbone of this great nation.""

Personally, I don't buy this idea that Hillary is unelectable. Sure, she's polarising, but so was Bush. She's seen as a radical, but so was Bush. A lot of people will vote against her, as many others did with Bush. No, I think she's in with a shout.

Bush is seen as a radical? Maybe now, but not in 2000. Nor was he that polarizing in 2000.

Bush was seen as pretty radical and polarizing in 2004 though, and he won then. I think Hillarycan beat an average Republican candidate, she could probably beat an above average candidate, but that would be a very very close race, where the independent would probably cost the republicans the race. like a Bloomberg independent campaign.

She most definitely can win, but she is far from the strongest possible candidate.

She would have a ton of money which would be a huge advantage, but she would fire up the GOP base regardless of who the Republican nominee is, so that basically makes it impossible for her to win by anything more than a narrow margin.

She'll be the early frontrunner with name recognition, backing from the DLC wing of the party, and a massive warchest. But...

Iraq will drag her down, just like it's taking down her buddy Joe Lieberman. She's trying to distance herself from the war, but it's too little, too late. The left will choose someone who opposed the war from the beginning, not a craven opportunist who's jumping on the bandwagon when it's popular to do so.

Logged

Here’s what Sarah Palin represents: being a fat fucking pig who pins “Country First” buttons on his man titties and chants “U-S-A! U-S-A!” at the top of his lungs while his kids live off credit cards and Saudis buy up all the mortgages in Kansas.

while i'm sure she's qualified, i would have to say she won't take it. she isn't likeable. and regardless of how it should be, 1/2 of running for president is selling yourself as a person....and let's face it, she comes across as a femi-nazi. women don't appreciate her and men are emasculated by her.

I think she is definitely electable. Whether she will win, assuming she gets the Democratic nomination, depends on who the Republicans run against her and what conditions overall are at that time.

To an unusual degree for a non-incumbent presidential candidate, Hillary is a known quantity, and many more voters have an already-formed opinion of her than is normal at this stage in the election cycle.

She has major liabilities, but also major assets. She is a cold automaton who is obsessed with gaining power, and would slit her own mother's throat if that were what it took for her to gain power. This gives her a large advantage in many ways, but also makes more discerning people very wary of her.

Her public positions on the issues are arrived at purely from political calculation (as was her decision to remain in her adultrous marriage) rather than from her real beliefs. A big achilles heal for her at this time is her vote in favor of the Iraq war, which has alienated her to some degree from the radical left-wing nutcases that would normally be her most enthusiastic supporters.

What happens with Hillary will test my theory that only 'second wave' people from formerly 'out' groups can win the presidency. I have long believed that it would take a post-feminist woman to win the presidency -- a woman who, unlike Hillary, isn't obsessed with her own gender, but is running from a broader perspective.

Her public positions on the issues are arrived at purely from political calculation (as was her decision to remain in her adultrous marriage) rather than from her real beliefs. A big achilles heal for her at this time is her vote in favor of the Iraq war, which has alienated her to some degree from the radical left-wing nutcases that would normally be her most enthusiastic supporters.

But surely that's a good thing for her? If she distances herself from the far left of the party (though I personally wouldn't describe them as radical left-wing nutcases) she can portray herself as a moderate with the wider electorate. (I personally think she is fairly moderate, but as usual, perception is everything in politics.)

I don't share the opinion of Clinton as cold and calculating (with regards to marriage or politics or anything else), although I suppose all politicians are this way to a certain extent. I certainly don't see her as any more so than the vast majority of other politicians.

I agree that her support for the war hurts her, although as Michael mentioned, I hardly see why opposition to the war would be considered far left wing, considering the majority of Americans hold this position. It isn't the only issue on which she's more toward the center (or as I said, in this case, to the center-right). I agree, though that the perception of her as liberal would hurt in the general election.

No prizes for guessing which presidential front-runner drew these remarks in focus groups.

But these weren't Republicans talking about Hillary Clinton. They weren't even independents.

These were ordinary, grass-roots Democrats. People who identified themselves as "likely" voters in the pivotal state's Democratic primary. And, behind closed doors, this is what nearly half of them are saying.

"I was amazed," says Bennett. "I thought there might be some negatives, but I didn't know it would be as strong as this. It's stunning, the similarities between the Republicans and the Democrats, the comments they have about her."

Bennett runs American Research Group Inc., a highly regarded, independent polling company based in Manchester, N.H. He's been conducting voter surveys there since 1976. The polls are financed by subscribers and corporate sponsors [...]

His conclusion? "Forty-five percent of the Democrats are just as negative about her as Republicans are. More Republicans dislike her, but the Democrats dislike her in the same way."

Hillary's growing brain trust in the party's upper reaches already knows she has high "negatives" among ordinary Democrats. They think she can win those voters over with the right strategy and message.

But they should get out of D.C., New York and L.A. more often, and visit grassroots members.

Because we're not talking about "soft" negatives like, say, "out of touch" or "arrogant."

But Bennett says he's never before seen so many N.H. voters show so much hatred toward a member of their own party. He's never even seen anything close.

Hillary will not be the nominee.

Logged

Here’s what Sarah Palin represents: being a fat fucking pig who pins “Country First” buttons on his man titties and chants “U-S-A! U-S-A!” at the top of his lungs while his kids live off credit cards and Saudis buy up all the mortgages in Kansas.

Well, I certainly would prefer Clinton not be the nominee, so from that standpoint this is good to see. I'd like to see some actual polling numbers though rather than simply anecdotes from focus groups before I'd take it too seriously.

The bigger question to "Can Hillary win" is why would the Democratic party want to nominate somebody who's electibility is so highly debated. The Democrats probably have atleast a half a dozen candidates out there who would probably start out way more likeable and farther ahead than Hillary. Some people say she can't win, others who say she can says it would be an uphill battle. So why would Democrats want to nominate somebody who they would have an uphill battle with?

I agree that her support for the war hurts her, although as Michael mentioned, I hardly see why opposition to the war would be considered far left wing, considering the majority of Americans hold this position.

Indeed. I still can't figure out whether this labelling of anyone with a stance against the Iraq war as a raving extremist left-winger is a smear tactic or genuine naivete on behalf of the right, but the fact is that people like Lamont are moderates whose views resonate with the majority of the people. But then it's like Gore said, when the far right is in charge anyone to the left of them will be viewed as extreme, including moderates. Hopefully the November elections and possibly 2008 should change this.

I agree that her support for the war hurts her, although as Michael mentioned, I hardly see why opposition to the war would be considered far left wing, considering the majority of Americans hold this position.

Indeed. I still can't figure out whether this labelling of anyone with a stance against the Iraq war as a raving extremist left-winger is a smear tactic or genuine naivete on behalf of the right, but the fact is that people like Lamont are moderates whose views resonate with the majority of the people. But then it's like Gore said, when the far right is in charge anyone to the left of them will be viewed as extreme, including moderates. Hopefully the November elections and possibly 2008 should change this.

The problem is not with opposing this war, per se, but in denying that there is any threat from islamic terrorism to the west. We are currently in a state of denial among large numbers of people about this problem, even as Iran and North Korea collaborate on nuclear missiles. It's eerily like the period before World War II when the Nazis were gathering strength and building up arms, while the west argued about whether they were a problem or not.

This is a terrible problem, so it's course it's so much more comforting to blame our own leaders for all the problems. Because we know that ultimately, we can change our leaders. Dealing with the real problem is much harder. But blaming our leaders for all these problems, however flawed our own leaders may be in certain ways, is really a tactic of the mentally weak who are unable to face up to reality.

So I think the manner in which one opposes the war policies of this administration are what's important. If you find fault with the policies of this administration, suggest alternatives that actually address, rather than avoid or deny, the problem. Otherwise, like the Vietnam War, this war could end up being a boost for Republicans in the long run. I read an interesting commentary the other day explaining this. It stated that while the Vietnam War was never popular, most Americans hated the anti-war movement more than they hated the war. Looking at the vitriol from the liberals in the Connecticut race, it's easy to see that happening again.

I think the last thing we need is another president who is going to be deeply hated by large numbers of people no matter what, and that is what we'd be getting with Hillary.